Satweavers's Photobucket LEM Crater album media

4A1214X4.jpg

Satweavers — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 02:37:19 MDT

Satweavers posted a photo

4A1214X4.jpg

The throttled down engine exhaust past the combustion chamber throat expands and drops in pressure, especially once it has left the rim of the venturi, or bell, where it is not constrained by any atmospheric pressure. In the vacuum of space it disburses and diffuses and the portion of it that is directed against the soil is deflected radially outward in a laminar flow. There wasn't enough force to gouge a substantial crater. Instead surface dust was blown out in all directions creating rays in the dust, as can be seen in photos.

5AS14-66-9262Det.jpg

Satweavers — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 02:36:42 MDT

Satweavers posted a photo

5AS14-66-9262Det.jpg

The Hoaxers site as "proof", the fact that even these little pebbles were not blown away by the 10,000 pound thrust of the mighty descent engine! Again, the engine was throttled down, infact, was shutting down as it approached this spot. The pebbles that you see in the images are what's LEFT when lighter material was blown away. What you see above are pebbles that were uncovered by the exhaust and left behind when the engine cut and there wasn't enough 'wind' left to move the pebbles. The LAST FADING GASP of exhaust UNCOVERED THE PEBBLES that you see in the photographs! Another "Proof" states that "the body weight of a man in 1/6 G "Should Not" leave footprints of the depth seen in photos, considering the engine's blast should have removed ALL the dust". First, it is obvious that all the dust was not blown away, since its depth was at least a foot or two evidenced by the core samples gathered. And the exhaust did not blow away ALL THE DUST at the landing spot, so there was dust to make foot prints in. Secondly, "Should Not" based on WHAT? What has anyone compared this to? I've seen no Hoaxer analysis of the soil mechanics of lunar regolith and its ability to retain footprints.

3AS11-40-5926HR.jpg

Satweavers — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 02:36:16 MDT

Satweavers posted a photo

3AS11-40-5926HR.jpg

When the 5.6 foot long probes on the feet touch the lunar surface, a Contact Light was triggered, prompting the pilot to shut down the engine. At shut down and the LM free falls the final five feet (The already throttled-down exhaust ceased as the LM settled to the surface, hence, there's no dust on the pads). The Moon, being an airless world, did not provide an environment in which dust thrown up by the engine would become turbulent or raise clouds of dust suspended by an atmosphere. No clouds, no dust settling onto the foot pads. The LEM did not always end up directly over the convergence point of the rays left in the soil when the engine shut down.

2AS11-40-5921Det.jpg

Satweavers — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 02:35:54 MDT

Satweavers posted a photo

2AS11-40-5921Det.jpg

As the astronauts approached touch down, the LEM's descent engine had removed its orbital velocity, so fuel tanks were nearly empty, the LM was lighter by 18,000 pounds. The engine was throttled back from 10,000 to 3000 pounds of thrust, or only the thrust needed to hover against the pull of 1/6 of Earth's gravity. Moving forward and setting down, it was throttled down still further. (In this Apollo 11 photo you can see the radial pattern where dust was blown away by engine exhaust. Hoaxers state again and again that there is no evidence of soil having been disturbed by the descent engine.)

"There's No Crater Gouged Into The Soil By The Descent Engine's Terrible Blast!"

Satweavers — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 02:35:10 MDT

Satweavers posted a photo

"There's No Crater Gouged Into The Soil By The Descent Engine's Terrible Blast!" - 1AS11-40-5921Full.jpg

As common as the "No Stars Proof" is the "No Blast Crater Under The LEM Proof" cited by Moon Hoaxers. I've grown weary of explaining this over and over and over to the point that I was driven to post my explanations here. The Hoaxers compare the reality of these Apollo photographs to NASA artist's renderings of what they THOUGHT it would look like before anybody had actually landed on the Moon. Hoaxers even point to the paintings by Norman Rockwell as authoritative proof of the impact of the descent engine on lunar soil. These same sources are often cited by Hoaxers as examples of what the LM rocket exhaust 'should' look like. Norman Rockwell painted Thanksgiving Dinner Scenes for Saturday Evening Post covers. He was NOT a ROCKET SCIENTIST!!! Let's consider the landing sequence while we examine some Apollo photos.